The letter to Mr Daniels picked up on Blackfriars Bridge and the concern that because TfL is adding one motor vehicle lane in each direction, cycle lanes will only be 1.5 metres wide and next two very narrow (and now faster speed limit) motor vehicle lanes.The letter also refers to other concerns about the junction design which I will deal about in a future post.

TfL has responded on Leon Daniels's behalf. And that response on the issue of cycle lane width is very illuminating. I quote in full:

"I am sorry that you do not believe the latest design is adequate but where possible we have incorporated improvements for both cyclists and pedestrians into the junction design. Maintaining the southbound cycle lane and widening the northbound cycle lane will provide cyclists with their own road space throughout the junction. Banning the left turn from New Bridge Street into Queen Victoria Street has permitted the extension of the cycle lane leading into the junction from the north and the provision of an Advance Stop Line in this location. A new cycle right turn facility will also enable cyclists to travel from Victoria Embankment onto Blackfriars Bridge both safely and more directly.

Where possible TfL look to widen cycle lanes to two metres, as proposed for the initial section of the northbound cycle lane, however, the constraints of the highway coupled with our duty to maintain a smooth traffic flow in this location have prevented us from widening all cycle lanes throughout the junction. The London Cycle Design Standards recommend a minimum width of 1.5 metres for cycle lanes and whilst TfL acknowledge that 2 metres will increase the comfort levels experienced by cyclists there is no evidence to show that this extra width creates a safety benefit.

I would like to reassure you that measures, have been taken to ensure that no vehicle will encroach into these cycle lanes.

Our latest design proposes to designate all cycle lanes as mandatory. Vehicle footprints have been tracked throughout the junction to ensure that there is no encroachment of motor vehicles into this dedicated cycle lane."

The head of surface transport at TfL is stating that, in an environment with three motor traffic lanes in each direction (only 3.0m wide each), that there is no additional safety benefit in a 2.0 metre-wide cycle lane versus a 1.5 metre cycle lane.

In 2002, the Department for Transport published its Drivers' Perception of Cyclistsreport. The first statement of the report is that "one of the main deterrents to cycling is a fear of traffic, often attributed to the attitudes and behaviour of drivers". Our Mayor is, in theory, encouraging a Cycling Revolution (although this article shows how he's not supporting the rhetoric with any financial backing). If fear of traffic is a deterrent to cycling, then keeping cyclist and driver as apart from each other as possible is surely something that TfL should be pushing for. In fact, the DfT's very first recommendation states: "....physical road features that force cyclists and drivers into close proximity should be avoided, or where this is unavoidable, motor vehicle speeds at such locations should be reduced". As it happens, TfL is INCREASING the speed limit in this junction and adding two more motor vehicle lanes, in other words, the exact opposite of the DfT recommendations.

Even TfL's own Cycle Safety Action Plan, published last year, states that 'close proximity collision between cyclist and vehicle' is the biggest cause of serious injury or death of cyclistsi n London.

But let's leave the reports alone for a bit and look at common sense:

Broadly speaking, the closest a cyclist should ever ride to the kerb is 0.5 metre (wheel position) - and the preferred position is nearly double this.

The closest a driver (or another cyclist) should ever overtake a cyclist is with 1 metre clear gap (or more, if you follow the Highway Code)

As a fellow cyclist put it to me, Mr Daniels, the arithmetic isn't hard: if a driver drives on the edge of a cycle lane, s/he is guaranteed to be too close if the lane is less than 1.8 metres wide (0.5 + 1.0 + 0.3 (half width of cyclist). A 2-metre lane gives a slight extra margin and will be comfortable for most cyclists most of the time.

A gap of 20 or 30cm might mean a small dent if any problems occur between two motor vehicles passing each other slowly here. If one of those vehicles is your own flesh and bones on a cycle, a single error of judgement, or a pothole, equals serious injury or death. Perhaps TfL needs to sit up and realise that someone on a cycle is not the same as someone behind the steering wheel in these situations.

If you want to encourage Londoners to drive, then give them Blackfriars as you've (re-)designed it and continue to claim it suits everyone's needs.

If you want to encourage Londoners to cycle, then design it right. But don't try to palm us off with something that encourages driving and try to pretend this will actually encourage cycling.

-----

If you agree, then you've got two days to lobby your London Assembly member to do something about Blackfriars Bridge.